[KJUN]

http://www.ca-republican.com/3402/3402vote.htm

Only another week or two to register those .50BMG, right?

It's a shame, but I bet they'll be outlawed by the Fed's soon, too. But, kalifornia does HAVE to lead the charge in punishing innocent citizens, right?

KJ

 

[84 C4]

Stand up for your rights, don't register a single rifle with the communists.:angry:

 

[KJUN]

I don't (and wouldn't) live in kalifornia. I agree with you completely, but look at the flip-side: you can't resist from the inside of a jail!

I haven't had to make the choice yet, and I hope I never do. Of course, I wish NO American had to choose between obeying the constitution and going to jail for breaking a law that violates their constitutional rights!

 

[84 C4]

This is a violation of the 4th amendment, I know I'm not the only one who views it as "an unreasonable siezure" to ban a firearm which has been involved in 0 crimes, within the US, since it's introduction.

 

[KJUN]

Well, I don't like to put it that way because even if the .50BMG was used in a couple of crimes a year, that is reason to destroy the criminals and not ban the gun. All of us probably agree with my thoughts on this matter, but our words sound like we would be OK with banning a gun that WAS used frequently in crime.

Heck, even if the Tec-9, for example, was involved with 95% of gun related crimes, I still wouldn't want to see even THAT gun outlawed!

I don't know what the best way to say it would be but the following my be better: "Since crimes committed with a .50BMG are unheard of, the unconstitutional banning of them by kalifornia can NOT ne expected to reduce the illegal actions of violent criminals in any way." Of course, that implies that the ban would be OK if it did reduce crime, but I do NOT support that implication, either.

KJ

 

[84 C4]

All the guns that had a likely reason to be banned were banned 70yrs ago by the NFA of 1934, and with proper liscensing, you can still own them. I don't believe their manufacture, sale, or distribution of them, should be banned. The NFA is fine by me, anything after that, should be thrown out the window.

 

[Rich Z]

Quite simply, this is an ex post facto law, which is SPECIFICALLY prohibited in the Constitution. Since all states have agreed to support and defend the US Constitution when they became states of the United States of America, these restrictions do apply to them as well.

Ex post facto
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

Why are pro-gun attorneys in such short supply?